Puffer

4 hours ago, Shyheels said:

God rest you merry, gentlemen, let nothing you dismay

Indeed so!   And the punctuation was in the right place; the carol is often wrongly sung as 'God rest ye [you] merry gentlemen, let nothing you dismay ...'   And it doesn't work either if a synonym for 'merry' is substituted.

2 hours ago, FastFreddy2 said:

When I first read that, I laughed (once - and out loud) and prepared to write a two word reply along the line of "bloody cheek" , but then realised I too would not want to be active in a Gentleman's Club. A hundred years ago, the title and the theme of the venue would be singular in purpose and membership qualification. Less so these days. ...

 

We may or may not be slightly at cross-purposes here.   I deliberately didn't refer to H4M as being something of an online 'gentlemen's club' because the term 'gentlemen' is somewhat outdated (and over-used today to mean almost any adult male) and also because H4M does not offer anything (other than a forum for discussion) or to try to be in any way equivalent to the traditional bricks-and-mortar 'gentlemen's club', of the sort which thrived a century ago and which still exists in similar form today.   If, Freddy, you are trying to suggest that the term was usually or often a euphemism or cover for practices that were at best unsavoury and in the past illegal, then you may be right - but that is not the function of the true (and very respectable, if stuffy and exclusive) clubs that I had in mind, most of which have opulent premises in and around St. James's in London.  

As I see it, the main advantage of this site (as opposed to any other catering for broadly the same interests) is that members can and do exchange views in an intelligent and generally literate manner without too many extremist topics or diversions.   If that sounds elitist, snobbish or xenophobic, so be it; I find much of the comment elsewhere (and its presentation) disappointing and sometimes close to insulting.  I appreciate that we do discuss topics other than shoes or heels, but why not?  Most members have other strings to their bows that merit an airing, and issues relating to topics such as travel, photography and DIY can benefit from inclusion here, albeit best separated from the pure 'fashion' discussions when there is no direct connection.

It is a shame that the active members here seem to be few, and I agree that it would be good to have a few female contributors, but as a club-like forum for blokes (I won't say 'gentlemen'; the term is so easily abused or misunderstood!), it serves a purpose and I will try to continue to participate.  

1 hour ago, FastFreddy2 said:

3 hours ago, euchrid said:

------- It's the SKIRT that costs £738.  The price of the boots isn't stated.

1 hour ago, FastFreddy2 said:

 

Yikes!!!!

I'll go back and have a look at the boots .... 

If you go to http://www.luisaviaroma.com/index.aspx#ItemSrv.ashx|SeasonId=62I&CollectionId=AM7&ItemId=2&SeasonMemoCode=sale&GenderMemoCode=women&CategoryId=&SubLineId=shoes&utm_source=CommissionJunction&utm_medium=affiliation&utm_campaign=Lyst-US&PID=3852549&AID=10621891 it seems clear that the boots are £737 net and the skirt (separate item) is £738 net.   But the boots are only shown as available in a 37.5!

22 minutes ago, FastFreddy2 said:

 

Gets worse as you get older. ....    

The two certainties of getting older (and I speak from experience) are:

1.   You start losing your memory

2.   Errr?

Happy Easter to all my readers.

Hmmm.   I think the boots do speak for themselves, and they look neither one thing nor the other 'to boot'.  

As to the earlier purchase, do you mean 'Priceless' (in UK, and defunct part of Stylo-Barratt) rather than 'Payless' (in USA and certainly not defunct)?   I have a couple of pairs of Priceless boots; the quality (and fit) is pretty good, although I can't vouch for long-term wear.

9 hours ago, FastFreddy2 said:

 

Did your 'ghost writer' pen the first half sentence, and forget to brief on it's meaning? 

In kind.  "The bourgeoisie lauding it over the proletariat as history demands. How right was Marx?"    

 

We were too weak with hunger to walk 50 miles .... 

3 hours ago, Shyheels said:

warm gravel for breakfast? You were lucky...

Ghost writer?  Never!    But I must admit I took the butler's advice regarding breakfast and he was adamant that gravel is always served warm to the peasantry.

(Must go now - got to collect rent due at Christmas from various starving, ragged and ill-housed tenants on the estate; most enjoyable!)

I won't make fun of your past hardships, Freddy, am am pleased that you (and Mrs F) have survived and flourished.   But I did wonder whether we were going on to hear about one of you eating a bowl of warm gravel for breakfast and getting up at 3am to walk 50 miles to work ... 

11 minutes ago, FastFreddy2 said:

Discovered this behind a skirting board today. I hope it's old. (No I didn't test for moisture content. )

We've had a cat for a little over 2 years, and he's a 'bit of a one' for bringing the makers of this stuff home, half dead/half eaten. If we had one here still, he'd have found the maker. When I lift the floorboards close by, I'm hoping to find a dessicated carcass.

Surely a turkey would make a better lunch on Friday - the shops haven't sold out yet.

3 hours ago, Shyheels said:

When I say I followed the herd I am perhaps being ingenuous, or rather, referring to a particular facet or facets of life - in ths instance fashion. As I say I was never in the least interested in, or tempted by, the drug scene. In other ways I was far from followng the ordinary paths. I hitchhiked away from college and drifted around the US for a couple of years, living in the juice of a cracker, before heading overseas and never really returned. 

I've not had anything like a sensible career, and have little enough to show for it other than memories, but I have plenty of those.  I've managed to see over 100 countries on every continent, run grade six rapids on a raft, cycled through Africa, Australia, Asia and Europe, rounded the cape in a yacht, stood on the South Pole, run marathons in pretty quick time, and not worked in an office for over 25 years. 

 

Two questions, Shyheels: (i) where were you born and raised?   (ii) what does 'living in the juice of a cracker' mean?   (I'm guessing 'off your wits' or 'hand-to-mouth').

I like wedges too.   On women, wedge sandals can look good and are more practical than stilettos or other high heels - but I don't really like closed-toe 'court' styles (or boots) with a wedge heel; they seem like a mismatch.   I can see too the appeal if a man's shoe (or sandal, or boot) has a wedge, giving a discreet height of heel with comfort and ease of walking - but I have yet to try any.

My formative years were very dull and unremarkable, even compared to the modest (s)exploits reported above.   My family was solid, respectable, middle-class, suburban (dad a fairly senior civil servant with a very old-fashioned and cautious outlook).   Having left grammar school in 1966 - no university as I doubted my ability to progress along a similar academic road - I entered a respectable but unexciting profession.   My onward route was predictable: studies; exams; qualification (after 5 years); career advancement; house move; first marriage; children ...  you get the picture.   Alas, I was too young to participate much in the 'rock-and-roll' era (stiletto heels and beehives; winklepickers and leather jackets etc) which I admired from afar, and was not at all comfortable with the flower-power/hippy movement that followed (mini skirts and knee boots; flared trousers and platform shoes), or the long hair and make-up (both sexes) that then developed.   Apart from anything else, none of that would have sat well with my career (or my somewhat boring and largely solitary hobbies).  

I have always been something of a puritan: a very modest drinker, non-sportsman, non-thrill-seeker, who has kept well away from raucous parties or other excesses and the drink/drugs/casual sex that inevitably went with them.   Altogether a conventional, respectable, somewhat boring existence.   Frankly, I doubt that I would have chosen much of a different life if I had my time over again in the same era - except that I would almost certainly not have entered the same profession, which I did largely escape from in my mid-thirties, when my life did change somewhat, ultimately ending in separation/divorce/remarriage/new home.   Even now, I find it difficult to decide what my ideal and achievable lifestyle would have been (or would be now) as I am too serious/responsible an individual to simply drop-out, do my own thing and hope to find contentment.   Of course, because I am a member here shows that I do have other (largely unfulfilled) mildly enjoyable interests and desires - but nothing to suggest that I could or should lead a markedly different life in the modest span that probably remains.   Regrets?   I have a few ...

2 minutes ago, FastFreddy2 said:

... Although I assume much in saying so, your comments read as to a similar line of thinking to myself, in that you have an interest in styles for yourself that are not overtly feminine but SHOULD pass as androgynous. The 'styles' are those that you would find attractive to wear, given a free hand (that none of us feel we have)?

My immediate thought after reading your post was, if only we were young enough to 'get away with being fashion frontiersmen' trying to breakdown the barriers of our rather conservative dress codes .... But then we live in fairly conservative times? Even if we were young enough to be seen as 'fashion victims', rather than 'old queens', would we dare? ...

Yes, you are right; that is very much my view - and (if I think about it) one I have held since childhood.   But I claim no deep interest in or knowledge of 'fashion', have never attempted in practice to be 'trendy' (let alone a trendsetter) and was certainly too timid to be adventurous in my clothing.   My background and activity was far too conservative to consider anything daring or unconventional, especially as my height would never allow me to remain inconspicuous.

As I grew (much) older and (much) wiser, I realised that I could push the boundaries a little without embarrassment all round.   Five years or so ago I bought my first pair of (men's) cuban heels - and felt very daring and a bit silly wearing them outside; the sky didn't fall in ...   If I was young again: yes, I probably would be more daring (feeling as I now do) and certainly if it was the 1970s when men had a lot more latitude - not that I liked, then or now, most of what they wore - too gaudy and fussy all round; I am fundamentally a plain dresser and most of the looks I like on women fall into that category too.     

The boots do very much look like shoes with leggings attached, which (from your description, Freddy) is how they are apparently constructed.   Is that why you liked them, or are you really wanting a more conventional 'one piece' thigh boot?

If the former, it seems to me that you are not really gaining anything that close-fitting leggings worn with court shoes would not provide.

Which ones were they, Shyheels?   These:  http://www.shefinds.com/2010/leave-it-to-tommy-hilfiger-to-make-duck-boots-sexy/tommy-hilfiger-hanna-granny-boots/#tommy-hilfiger-bennington-low-duck-boots  or these:   https://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.shefinds.com%2Ffiles%2FTommy-Hilfiger-Bennington-Duck-Boots.jpg&imgrefurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.shefinds.com%2F2010%2Fleave-it-to-tommy-hilfiger-to-make-duck-boots-sexy%2Ftommy-hilfiger-bennington-duck-boots%2F&docid=jChbg2d_IEGRlM&tbnid=s26t4GAqmvflUM%3A&w=269&h=337&ved=0ahUKEwjr0ZL_2fHJAhWBrRQKHeibC48QxiAIBzAF&iact=c&ictx=1 

On 12/13/2015 at 1:42 PM, Puffer said:

...   I am not a latent crossdresser (at least in any serious lifestyle sense, as distinct from a spot of experimentation) but I very often see a woman in an outfit that makes me wish I could wear it in public and with same ease as she does.   ...

For the avoidance of doubt (as the lawyers say), perhaps I should clarify that somewhat vague statement.   I have tried on the odd female garment (aside from footwear) but have never attempted to dress completely and/or make up as a woman, let alone go outside en femme.   Nor am I likely too; even if I wanted to (and I freely admit to considering that it could be 'fun' on a purely experimental basis - who hasn't thought that?), my height is a drawback even if I have reasonably shapely legs and am not (yet) gross enough to pass only as an 'ugly sister'.  

And admiring a woman in a nice outfit and wanting to wear it is more likely to appeal to me if the components of the outfit are not overtly feminine - think silk shirt, jacket, trousers and high-heeled boots or loafers rather than lacy top, mini-skirt and stiletto sandals.   In other words, items that are broadly male or unisex in style but given that 'difference' to make them appeal (mostly) to women - a high heel added to a Chelsea boot or loafer being an obvious and simple example of something stolen from men and (damn them!) improved - but which men cannot then have for themselves.   At least, not without some physical or mental anguish.

Aside from the indisputable fact that women can wear whatever they like (including very masculine clothing), usually without comment and certainly without censure, I don't think that people of any gender wearing what surely were protective/weather resistant long boots either under or over trousers should or would attract any sort of notice or comment.    If I wear wellies in the rain or snow here, I won't get funny looks, however I wear them.   (An exception would be if a man wore women's wellies - the type with little coloured designs all over the shafts, as I saw a neighbour in recently, while out walking his dog in what were surely his wife's boots - nice!)

I appreciate that the women on Shyheels's ship did comment on his boots and how he should wear them, but this was on the basis of their appreciation/opinion of them as a 'fashion' item rather than because the boots or the wearer were gender-specific or worn in a 'non-masculine' manner.   Just another example of female fickleness and strange prioritisation!

26 minutes ago, FastFreddy2 said:

Pictures of the boots I wore, and how I wore them has been added to the post above.  

I like those boots, Freddy; where did you get them?   I assume you did wear them over (skinny) jeans, as shown.   That (to my mind) is the only really 'unusual' aspect of your overall look; men do not conventionally wear long 'dress' boots (as already discussed above), and the high, slim shaft is not typical of a man's boot anyway (and cannot be easy to put on, even with your slender pins).   The stitching and toe shape is perfectly normal on a cowboy boot, and yours are quite plain as they go, although one might argue that the heel is high for a cowboy.   Come to that, I have been told more than once that true cowboys do not normally wear even long and fancy boots outside their trousers.

Yes, I can see that these cowboy boots would pass without comment as, in context, they are not too extreme by any means.   But I doubt that they pass without being noticed - and I think you would (and should) be pleased if they are. 

5 hours ago, Russ in boots said:

Just a twist on this: I have some cowboy boots with 3.5 inch heels and a very long pointed toe. My wife says these are the boots she prefers to see me in if I have to wear heels, but in my opinion the toes on them are too pointy!

On that basis, Russ, I would be willing to swap my wife for yours!   

9 hours ago, FastFreddy2 said:

... I'm hoping there might be some remark, to draw out any feelings about them (good or bad)  but I wouldn't be surprised if no-one noticed or dismissed my choice of footwear as "me being me". (ie. Eccentric.) I'm not expecting to be judged, nor do I want to encourage false enthusiasm, but it would be nice if I didn't feel so compelled to 'hide' my interest from those so close to me.  

I'm probably not alone with that sentiment?

3 hours ago, Shyheels said:

... it genuinely annoys me when I look around and see women perfectly free to wear tall boots, yet were I to do so it woukd embarrass those around me. And yet there is absolutely nothing feminine about either if my pairs of boots, other than this blinkered association of tall boots with the distaff side of humanity. ...

Quite so.   If what I would like to wear openly in public (and I don't mean pink 6" stiletto sandals) was not denounced as 'effeminate', 'poofy', 'perverted' or otherwise as allegedly unacceptable from time to time, I would be a lot happier.   I can cope with 'eccentric' or 'different' (I am happy to be both, although in most respects a conformist) but it is hurtful to be thought of as a persona non grata by Joe Public - and even more so by close relatives or friends.    

I don't personally like to see a man with long hair, piercings, tattoos or an abundance of flashy jewellery - but such men are not uncommon, generally pass without vitriolic attack and are (one assumes) comfortable in their own skins and accepted in their own family or social circles.   So, why should high heels be unacceptable on a man, even on footwear of an otherwise masculine or at least unisex appearance, worn with otherwise conventional clothing?   Or are we being paranoid in thinking that, just because someone close is openly 'anti' or we have detected some sort of reaction elsewhere which we have interpreted (perhaps wrongly) as being adverse, we must conceal if not suppress our heel interest in the great majority of situations?   If there is an easy answer, I have yet to learn of it.

I had a very painful and temporarily disabling lower-back problem about eight years ago - sciatica brought on by a displaced disc.   Fortunately, it responded to medication, some mild physiotherapy and patience; the disc decided to reposition itself and no further action was needed.   Since then, the recurrence of back pain has been rare (and of short duration) and the only other symptom has been a twinge or pins-and-needles in one leg, which is tolerable.   Wearing a modest heel does help; it seems to improve my posture, taking pressure off my back.   But recently I have developed muscle pain in the other leg and a frozen shoulder - still under investigation but responding gradually to medication (and occasional heel-wearing too).   

I dislike unproductive exercise of any description and try to avoid it, unless essential to overcome the above problems.   (Whenever I feel the rare need to 'take exercise', I invariably find that, if I lie down quietly for about 20 minutes or so, the urge does go away.)   I don't regard walking as 'unproductive' as it is a good means of getting around economically (as if you didn't know!), and can be enjoyable and therapeutic too.   Walking round the shops is good; something to look at and pass the time, whether or not buying anything.  

The worst possible thing to do if trying to avoid back pain was graphically outlined by one doctor, i.e. leaning across a table that stands in front of a sash window and trying to raise that window from the bottom - ouch!   From bitter experience, I find that lifting out one's wallet in a shoe shop can be nearly as dangerous, if more immediately rewarding.

Yes, they are clearly 'passable' and, if the hidden heel helps with back pain etc, a sensible thing to wear.   Personally, I dislike anything as chunky or rugged as these and would not wear them.   I don't wear heels just for the lift (pleasant or therapeutic though this can be) and like something that is fairly light in both look and weight, which rules out anything that is clumpy, has a platform of any significance or has very rounded or square toes.   And it must be comfortable and (if to be worn in public) not overtly feminine.

May I also welcome you here, Russ.   You will find several like-minded members to exchange intelligent views with.   As a matter of interest, in which area of the UK do you live?

I can identify with most of the above comments.   I like heels (on women, and for discreet wearing myself) and have also found them beneficial for lower-back and leg pain.   However, my wife disapproves of my 'interest' and would certainly blow her top if she knew of my wearing activity.   As things stand, she is aware of my cuban-heeled men's boots (which she dislikes but tolerates) and also dislikes me wearing anything pointed.   I have to be careful but I am not prepared to completely abandon my harmless and casual pursuit just because she has different ideas.   

Yes, that would work well enough, Freddy, but you are going to quite a lot of trouble for one job.   Simply using the router/fence (and maybe short extension pieces, likely not needed if the boards can be cut to length after routing) as I described above would be simple and effective.   After all, your routing job is about as simple as they come and, even if your groove 'wanders' slightly in a few places (easily corrected), it will neither show nor matter in a floorboard.   

Some years ago, I routed a nice rounded corner on both sides of many metres of 3 x 2 (in 3.6m lengths) to be used as visible ceiling joists in a pitched-roof conservatory, using my method.   Easy as pie.   (On the other hand, the three-dimensional trigonometry needed to work out the cutting angles at the ends, especially with the joists meeting at an apex was certainly not as 'easy as p' and involved me in writing some quite complex formulae, not indulged in since A-level.) 

You don't surprise me with the wood-yard quote; the probability is that nothing less than 100m would have been worth their (or your) while in setting-up.

Forget Amazon, then, Freddy.   I've not had any problems and a couple of returned items were dealt with properly.   The 30-day rule cannot be applied if anything is or becomes defective, as distinct from a change of mind.

I'm not sure what you propose re routing; if I understand your sketch it is broadly what I had in mind.   I would simply clamp the board vertically in Workmate and, if necessary, clamp another short piece of wood at each end, with tops of both (i.e. edge to be routed) flush and extra wood on opposite side to router fence.   Then simply run the router with fence along to cut the groove; more than one pass may be needed.   I see no need for a table, although this would obviate the need for the 'extension pieces'.  Setting up and holding the router so it is stationary and running the wood over it (as with a table) can work but is cumbersome.   (Although a router should be used in one direction (so its rotation causes dig-in rather than out), in practice this makes little difference on most cuts and you can run it to and fro, or round and round etc, particularly if cut is fairly shallow.)